Ultra conservative National Review weighs in on "Trumplaw"
National Review Denounces ‘Trumplaw’ Amid Legal Controversy — Scolds the President, His Enemies, and Chief Justice Roberts
National Review denounced what it deemed “Trumplaw” in a Wednesday editorial addressing the controversy over the president’s objection to District Court Judge
James Boasberg’s decision putting deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to a halt over the weekend.
Boasberg called for a halt to the deportations as he considers the case on Saturday, but planes with deportees on board nevertheless landed in El Salvador and Honduras, raising questions over whether the Trump administration had deliberately defied a court order. While President
Donald Trump himself has denied that, both he and
Elon Musk have called for Boasberg’s impeachment.
On Tuesday, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
John Roberts rejected that call, writing in a statement that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
On Wednesday, the conservative magazine weighed in on it all.
“It sometimes seems that Donald Trump and his most bitter antagonists live in a parallel universe of Trumplaw. In that mode, judges and lawyers abandon legal sobriety and bend the law beyond its recognizable contours in order to thwart Trump. In response, the president and his circle act intemperately by lobbing personal attacks at judges and lawyers, playing fast and loose with facts and the law, and at least flirting with outright defying the rulings of courts,” began the editorial. “Whenever this happens, we find ourselves returning to first principles — including the importance of getting the details right. Neither bad faith nor bad habits on the part of either side relieves us of the duty to stand for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the proper separation of powers. We shall need all of these long after Trump is gone.”
It
continued:
America is ruled by laws that are written down. That is how the people make the rules. In order for rules to be binding, someone must decide what they mean. That is what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “the judicial power,” which they vested in the courts. Voters hire the executive to carry out the rules, in the course of which the president must form views of what the laws mean, but longstanding American constitutional tradition has treated the word of the courts on the meaning of laws as final.
Written rules are no less binding on judges; indeed, courts lack legitimate powers outside of them. Where the mandates of law leave room for judgment and discretion, that is typically a job for executive rather than judicial power, and for democratic accountability rather than cloistered and insulated life tenure.
For more than two centuries, presidents have chafed at the assertions of the supremacy of the judicial branch, and constitutionalists have raised alarms when the imperial judiciary at times has usurped authorities it was not granted by written law. Yet we have never had a full, open rupture between a president and the courts. We should avoid one so long as possible. Progressive Democrats threatened to defy court orders after Roe v. Wade was struck down; once the principle is established in the public mind that such things can be done, it will be a hard principle to limit.
“The White House should make clear that it will abide by the decisions of the appeals courts, and leave it at that. This is the wrong case to pick a wider fight with the legal system, no matter how well it polls. Given that Judge Boasberg has only delayed Trump’s actions, and that an appeal has already been filed, further escalations by either side are unnecessary and damaging to the American constitutional settlement,” concluded the publication’s editorial board. “As for Chief Justice Roberts, he did not help matters by lacking the courage to nip judicial adventurism in the bud in the USAID case. While he is right to be concerned at executive blowhardism, in this instance, he can best defend his branch’s legitimate powers by tending to his own house.”
The post
www.threads.net
